Bible Passages Show Works Required for Salvation

arabianhorselover said:

Actually, this entire discussion is rather silly. Jesus himself said "He Who Believes And Is Baptized Shall Be Saved". Nothing in there about works.

Click to expand...

That's true, but there's so much else in the New Testament that refers to Baptism that there's plenty of room for coming up with another slant on the subject.

saintboniface said:

Works are required to show genuine faith. Genuine faith is required for salvation. Thus, works are required for salvation.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

• Genuine Faith will bear the fruits of Good Works.
• Good works are the fruits/evidence of Genuine Faith
• If there are no good works therefore there is no Genuine Faith.

The mere act of confessing "I believe" is itself a work. Thus the moment someone comes to faith they do so with a work. The thief on the cross did the work of testifying with his dying words about Christ.

No one states the amount or type of good works necessary for the evidence. We simply do the usual things of going to church, confessing our sins, serving the poor and needy.

Furthermore : All the works in the world cannot save us. We cannot save ourselves through works. Only Christ can save us but we must cooperate with his grace with good works ( or we don't have genuine faith ).

Grace convicts us of sin, grace gives us the ability to do the work of saying I believe, if we choose to cooperate with it. Thus we are saved by grace through faith which expresses itself in action. That is why we cannot boast of our works, it was grace that even allowed us to perform them in the first place.

If one understands the traditional teaching Catholic/Orthodox there is ultimately a realization that much of the dispute over the centuries is simply a question of how we choose to describe the process. If one doesn't understand then one finds all kinds of things to object to due to a lack of understanding.

"I pray that they may be one"

Tangible said:

The JDDJ was an agreement between liberal Lutherans who no longer fully believe what Lutherans have consistently believed, taught and confessed since the beginning of the Reformation, and who are in full communion with Reformed and other protestant bodies teaching doctrines in direct opposition to Lutheran doctrines.

Click to expand...

Those groups also differ from the conservative wing of Lutherans on the modern social issues, like same sex marriage etc.

But when you count up the number of Lutherans represented by these groups that are part of the LWF in the US they are 2/3 of US Lutherans and if you go worldwide those part of the LWF approach 90% of Lutherans.

So in a very real sense it is true that "Lutherans have agreed but with a minority dissenting". Of course one can argue the majority is "not true Lutherans" but as there is no overall governing body one is left with a majority opinion of what is the proper Lutheran interpretation governing who owns the definition of the word Lutheran.

Albion said:

Interesting. Eastern mysticism substituted for the testimony of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Excuse me? Where do you see anywhere "Eastern Mysticism" in what I wrote?

Edward65 said:

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
(Romans 4:1-8 ESV)

Paul rules out all works in the above passage and says faith alone justifies, whereas James contradicts this and says: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;” (James 2:21-22 ESV).

Since James contradicts what Paul teaches on justification what James says here should be rejected.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy, caused by a lack of cultural and hermeneutical continuity.

What was the major concern that St. Paul fought all his life? It was the Judaizers, those of the "Circumcision Party" who insisted that circumcision must occur first before one could truly be a believer in the Messiah. This is what St. Paul addresses over and over and over again, especially in the book of Galatians.

So what Paul is doing here is addressing those Jews who were insisting that circumcision was necessary and telling them that it is faith which is necessity as opposed to circumcision. He is destroying their reliance on the Old Covenant and the sign of the Old Covenant, which is circumcision.

Faith indeed justifies us in initial justification and salvation, but once we have "cut covenant" with Christ through faith, we are expected to keep our covenant vows. This covenant keeping involves the doing of positive works (corporal and spiritual works of mercy) and negative works (eschewing sin and resisting the evil one). These are the works which keep us in covenant with Christ and in Him.

And if we are in Him at the Judgment Seat, then we will be rewarded with the inheritance of the saints in glory -- eternal life.

Light of the East said:

Excuse me? Where do you see anywhere "Eastern Mysticism" in what I wrote?

Click to expand...

I can't say as I recall reading anything you've posted, let alone reply to it. You must be thinking of someone else.

Edward65 said:

I’ve argued from Scripture in saying we’re justified through faith alone. I’m not basing my arguments on what Luther taught. I’ve only quoted and referred to him because he had a far greater capacity than I have to articulate the teaching of Scripture. Also I don’t see anything in those quotes from Clement you gave which contradict justification through faith alone.

Your argument that since faith without works is dead therefore works are necessary for salvation is false. That isn't the teaching of Scripture. The teaching of Scripture is that faith alone saves, and faith produces good works but that they don't contribute to one's salvation.

Since Christ atoned for our sins on the cross the only way we can be in receipt of this forgiveness is through accepting it in faith, which then leads a person to do good works out of gratitude for having been saved through Christ.

Mixing works with faith results in having a selfish motive for doing good works. Instead of freely helping others from altruism, a person who believes in the necessity of doing good works to earn forgiveness will be doing good works from a mercenary motive of personal advantage. That isn't Christian to help others on the basis of personal advantage. A Christian does good to others with no thought of being able to benefit from it himself personally.

Click to expand...

Wrong!

Period!

Our salvation is a covenant relationship. Baptism enters us into that relationship, but like all covenant relationships, it has certain principles which must be followed. You cannot have a covenant without certain principles, one of which is the making of vows of fidelity between the two parties which are entering into covenant.

In making vows, there are rewards for covenant fidelity and curses for breaking the covenant. Our works are the way that we either keep covenant with Christ (covenant fidelity) or break covenant with Him (mortal sin). The reward of covenant keeping is eternal life. The curse of covenant breaking is eternal death.

The idea of "faith alone" cannot be true because it does not follow covenant principles.

Albion said:

I can't say as I recall reading anything you've posted, let alone reply to it. You must be thinking of someone else.

Click to expand...

Page 5 -- Post number 47. That's you.

Please now answer the question.

Scipio said:

Help me out here.

Protestants claim that faith comes first but good works necessarily follow. I.e. you can't truly accept Jesus without subsequently performing good works.

Or is it the case that a person can have faith and still live an immoral, wretched life and end up in heaven without repenting for those sins? (Repentance and the resolution to stop sinning counts, I trust, as doing good works)

If the first is true then I accept the protestant view on justification as well.

If the second is true then I don't.

EDIT: Nvm, I found the answer in a different thread.

Click to expand...

I must say that I am surprised that you, a Catholic, use the words of heretics ("Accepting Jesus"). Surely, as a "violent Catholic" (or is it violently Catholic?) you know that no such beast existed for 1800 years until the American heretic, C.G. Finney, invented it with his "new methods of evangelization."

At any rate, baptism makes us part of the family (as you well know, my Catholic brother) but just because we are part of the family does not automatically make us holy. We strive to become holy (theosis) and we walk, we fall, we repent, and we get up and walk some more.

So it is absolutely possible to be born into a family and yet not take advantage of that situation and to fall away. That is why St. Paul warned his children that "the devil walks about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour"

That was written to Christians.

Water Cross said:

Have we forgotten that faith without works is dead? We can not work our way into Heaven. However, if we hold faith in our Lord and do nothing that reflects the energy of the Holy Spirit within us for our fellow human beings, what do we demonstrate of our faith? That it is our hope and it makes us sedentary?

James 2:20-22 But, O vain man, dost thou desire to know that faith without works is dead?21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?22 Dost thou not see how the faith worked together with his works, and the faith was complete by the works?

Click to expand...

Yes, this is Scriptural.

St_Worm2 said:

Hi Scipio, we Protestants believe that good works are the result of becoming/being a Christian, however, they cannot contribute in any way to obtaining salvation because "good works", IOW, works that are pleasing to God and according to His will, cannot be performed by non-Christians. Please notice my quote concerning this very thing in my signature line below (by John Calvin*). So yes, if one has come to faith and has truly become a Christian, good works will necessarily follow as a result.

However, if someone "CLAIMS" to have become a Christian, but this person never demonstrates any evidence to justify such a claim (IOW, if they continue to "live an immoral, wretched life" as you put it above), we do not consider their claim to be valid.

We are saved by Grace through Faith in Christ (John 5:24; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), and this involves God making us into "new creatures" (2 Corinthians 5:17). When faith is real and God has caused a real change of heart to occur, works pleasing to Him will result (Ephesians 2:10).

Yours and His,
David

*My signature line disappeared when I made a change to this post, so I'll just paste the quote back in so you can read it.

"We are justified by faith alone, but the
faith that justifies is never alone."
John Calvin​

Click to expand...

And you are wrong, sir.

One becomes a Christian through being baptized into the covenant family, the Church. Baptism enters one into Christ, (Rom 6:3) but that entrance is no guarantee of persevering to the end. If it were, St. Paul wasted his breath warning his children (converts) against apostasy and falling away from the faith.

This idea that "if you fall away you never were a Christian in the first place" is a bogus idea made up by people who either couldn't stand the idea that one could be saved and then lose it, or by those who simply hated the Catholic faith and opposed anything the Church taught.

Light of the East said:

Page 5 -- Post number 47. That's you.

Click to expand...

Well, it was me after all. April 3. However, that doesn't make the discussion any fresher in my mind. That's what happens when a dead thread (like this one) is resurrected long after its demise.

Light of the East said:

One becomes a Christian through being baptized into the covenant family, the Church.

Click to expand...

Nope. A CHRISTian is a believer in Christ. Are you suggesting that a Christian that is not baptized cannot be a Christian?

Secondly, and I'll dispel where you are going right now, a Christian does not have to be a member of your church to be a Christian.

Hentenza said:

Nope. A CHRISTian is a believer in Christ. Are you suggesting that a Christian that is not baptized cannot be a Christian?

Secondly, and I'll dispel where you are going right now, a Christian does not have to be a member of your church to be a Christian.

Click to expand...

If you are not baptized, you have not made covenant with Christ and therefore are not a Christian. If a man was not circumcised under the Old Covenant, he was not a member of the covenant family, national Israel, and was not a partaker of God's salvation.

God saves whoever He will, and Romans 2: 13-16 supports that idea, however, the NORMATIVE METHODOLOGY of salvation is that you are covenanted into the Church which Jesus established upon St. Peter. Those who refuse such do so at the peril of their souls.

Albion said:

Well, it was me after all. April 3. However, that doesn't make the discussion any fresher in my mind. That's what happens when a dead thread (like this one) is resurrected long after its demise.

Click to expand...

Well, I just wonder, sir, why you referred to Eastern Mysticism? Was it that Hindu dot between my eyes?

Light of the East said:

If you are not baptized, you have not made covenant with Christ and therefore are not a Christian.

Click to expand...

Where in scripture or even in the ECFs is being a Christian equated to being baptized?

If a man was not circumcised under the Old Covenant, he was not a member of the covenant family, national Israel, and was not a partaker of God's salvation.

Click to expand...

Since God's new covenant was made with the house of Judah, and since Christianity (where there is no Jew nor Greek) is a partaker of the covenant because the Jews (corporately) did not accept the Messiah and led to the gentiles being grafted into the olive tree, then how can you equate circumcision with baptism? Paul did not say that baptism came, he states that faith came (see Gal. 3).

God saves whoever He will, and Romans 2: 13-16 supports that idea, however, the NORMATIVE METHODOLOGY of salvation is that you are covenanted into the Church which Jesus established upon St. Peter. Those who refuse such do so at the peril of their souls.

Click to expand...

Jesus did not established His church upon Peter but upon his statement of faith. As far as Romans 2, your interpretation is not consistent with the chapter. This is why taking verses in a vacuum typically leads to error.

Hentenza said:

Where in scripture or even in the ECFs is being a Christian equated to being baptized?

Since God's new covenant was made with the house of Judah, and since Christianity (where there is no Jew nor Greek) is a partaker of the covenant because the Jews (corporately) did not accept the Messiah and led to the gentiles being grafted into the olive tree, then how can you equate circumcision with baptism? Paul did not say that baptism came, he states that faith came (see Gal. 3).



Jesus did not established His church upon Peter but upon his statement of faith. As far as Romans 2, your interpretation is not consistent with the chapter. This is why taking verses in a vacuum typically leads to error.

Click to expand...

Next, is the well known figure of St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165). Here are some selections from his First Apology:

“I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. They then are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. . . . The reason for this we have received from the Apostles.” (Chapter 61)

Notice that Justin Martyr, writing about fifty years after the death of the Apostle John, claims that they received from the Apostles the doctrine that through baptism they receive “remission of sins that are past” [i.e. prior to baptism], and through baptism they are “regenerated” in the same manner that all Christians were regenerated (i.e. by baptism).

Hentenza said:

Where in scripture or even in the ECFs is being a Christian equated to being baptized?

Since God's new covenant was made with the house of Judah, and since Christianity (where there is no Jew nor Greek) is a partaker of the covenant because the Jews (corporately) did not accept the Messiah and led to the gentiles being grafted into the olive tree, then how can you equate circumcision with baptism? Paul did not say that baptism came, he states that faith came (see Gal. 3).

Because whenever you make a covenant, you must have a ceremony of "covenant cutting." The ceremony of making covenant with God in the Old Covenant was circumcision. If you didn't do it, you were not part of the congregation (church) of God. When Christ died, circumcision changed into baptism.

Jesus did not established His church upon Peter but upon his statement of faith. As far as Romans 2, your interpretation is not consistent with the chapter. This is why taking verses in a vacuum typically leads to error.

Click to expand...

No, that is a common Protestant dodge. Christ said that Peter was the rock upon which Christ would build His Church. Why? Because another one of the principles of a covenant relationship is covenant headship. You cannot have a covenant body without having a covenant head, or leader of the organization.

We see what the lack of such leadership has done in Protestantism -- utter and total doctrinal, theological, and moral chaos. Every man in a pulpit thinks that he is the leader of Christianity and that what he teaches is 100% correct and subject to no error. This is one of many reasons that Christ established Peter as the hierarchical head of the earthly Church.

Light of the East said:

Next, is the well known figure of St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165). Here are some selections from his First Apology:

“I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. They then are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. . . . The reason for this we have received from the Apostles.” (Chapter 61)

Notice that Justin Martyr, writing about fifty years after the death of the Apostle John, claims that they received from the Apostles the doctrine that through baptism they receive “remission of sins that are past” [i.e. prior to baptism], and through baptism they are “regenerated” in the same manner that all Christians were regenerated (i.e. by baptism).

Click to expand...

Nothing in Justin about Baptism. Also, John 3 is not referring to Baptism. You are interjecting your bias into the text. Next.

Light of the East said:

No, that is a common Protestant dodge.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Christ said that Peter was the rock upon which Christ would build His Church. Why? Because another one of the principles of a covenant relationship is covenant headship. You cannot have a covenant body without having a covenant head, or leader of the organization.

Click to expand...

Petros and petras. Different genders. Just three verses later Jesus tells Peter to "get behind me satan." Did Jesus start His church upon satan?

<snip>

Click to expand...

Emotional rant. Not worth my time.